He Marnix,

(It’s an interessting idea you have. Like if a short proof is interessting.

The thing is where a proof is a result. It’s build up with different sightings 
and if formula (‘s).

Formula’s can be discussed where a proof is like undenieable.


For instance, A + B = C or A + A = B then A + B = 3A hence C = 3A; only if A + 
A = B. So 2A = B then 3A = C if A + B = C but A + B = C is true; even if not A 
+ A = B.


A proof is A² + B² = C²; because of the greek law. You can draw it with lines 
in this consensus. Line 90 degrees line connected with a line (straight lines).

The proof is that the areal surface of A² + the areal surface of B² = the areal 
surface of C²

This one you can draw out according to the Greek law.)


Having sayd this long proofs and short proofs are likely understoot by 
mathematicians so..


With friendly regards,

Dirk-Anton Broersen


Verzonden vanuit Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> voor 
Windows 10

Van: Marnix Klooster<mailto:[email protected]>
Verzonden: vrijdag 27 maart 2020 19:25
Aan: Metamath<mailto:[email protected]>
Onderwerp: [Metamath] Why would proof shortening be useful?

Hello all,

Occasionally I see people here spending effort on making Metamath proofs as 
short as possible.  And every time I wonder, Why?

Of course it can be a nice challenge occasionally, but I thought proofs were 
intended to communicate?  So they have a certain structure that can convey some 
kind of understanding to the reader.

And most shortened proofs, especially the auto-shortened ones, will lack that-- 
they will only be correct.

I mean, minimizing the number of dependencies, or avoiding specific 
dependencies, I can understand as a useful goal.  But why would we spend 
significant effort on shortening proofs?

Thanks!

Groetjes,
 <><
Marnix
--
Marnix Klooster
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Metamath" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/CAF7V2P-KT1S23_whnDhgFE0HoW%3DdQkOxcyLm0DoM%2B-vkf9sepA%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/CAF7V2P-KT1S23_whnDhgFE0HoW%3DdQkOxcyLm0DoM%2B-vkf9sepA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Metamath" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/HE1P189MB0282E3FBB85EEDE60EC771F283CC0%40HE1P189MB0282.EURP189.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

Reply via email to